There have been thousands of editorials written claiming video games need more innovation. Nintendo comes along and gives us lots of innovation and the hard core gamer responds with:
No thanks Nintendo. I really just want another FPS with better graphics.
Sure there have been gimmicks added to the FPS formula (cover system, physics engine, and now with even more gore), but really they are just Doom with a new coat of paint. I have played probably 100 different FPS games and I had a good time with them but it's hard for me to get excited about Call of Duty 4, Halo 3, Crysis, or BioShock. Sure they have cool graphics and new gimmicks (look new weapons) but that genre is dead to me just like I can't play another football, soccer, versus fighting game, or driving game. I used to love all of those genres and played the hell out of them but at some point I felt ripped off paying for a new version.
Why is the FPS still around when so many other gaming trends die like versus fighting games? I think the main reason is the visceral thrill of the violence. A cutesy Mario game can't give you the thrill of blowing off someones head with a shotgun. I guess at some point, as an older gamer, I have become less responsive to violent thrills and now I just want something different. It happened with movies too. I guess watching Evil Dead and Hellraiser too many times as a kid made me realize that some movies only offer violence with out any substance. Saw, 300, and every Mel Gibson movie is complete boredom to me now. I would rather sit through 12 hours of Battlestar Galactica at this point in my life.
There was a collective yawn over Nintendo's Wii Fit from the hardcore gaming community. To me it was the only thing at E3 that looked interesting. If Wii Fit can be another Wii sports I don't care if that thing costs another $250. I play the hell out of my Wii. Most of the games on the Wii are usually something new I haven't played before. I just finished Super Paper Mario and even with some slow and tedious parts (Chapter 6 is painful), it kept me engaged because it was something very different. I have never liked a Sonic game (even the old ones) but Sonic and the Secret Rings is challenging fun. Trauma Center, Elebits, Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz, Wii Play, Wario Ware: Smooth Moves and Excite Truck are brand new experiences on the Wii even if they are derived from earlier games.
So why doesn't a good percentage of the hardcore gamer market embrace the Wii series of games? I think the complete lack of violence on the Wii won't let certain gamers even consider games that aren't a macho killing game. It probably makes sense why some really mediocre games with things that have been done a thousand times are selling well. When you mention the Wii on a message board often Red Steel is always mentioned as being bad. It is like Red Steel, a violent game, is the only game they considered buying the Wii for.
It seems like even the video game companies are trying to target those gamers. They know that the same violent thrills get old and you have to push the boundaries much like how the movie studios are trying to push ever increasing gruesome movies. To get the person a visceral thrill now you have to increase the dosage, hence the increase in sadistic and graphic violence. I guess developing a button tapping strangling mechanic really satisfies certain gamers. I don't blame game makers for collecting cash for rehashing the same formula. Innovation is hard and people will buy the same stuff over and over again.
Can you tell what game this is without cheating?
OK. At least I have never gamed in this position before.